Juries are not supposed to make legal determination, only factual ones. The judge calls the shots on the law.
And
> it is juries --
> lay persons -- that need to be convinced if judges
> do not dismiss
> charges. The prosecution's strategy was not so much
> legal as
> terrorist, i.e.,terrorizing the jury that not
> convicting Stewart,
> Mohammed Yousry, and Ahmed Sattar would be dangerous
> because Sheik
> Omar Abdel Rahman's words, as well as his
> "followers," are extremely
> dangerous.
Far as I can tell you are switching gears. The Stewart prosecution is a disgrace and should be protested. Unlike the Rahmnen perosecution.
>> The first indictment [dismissed] was under a law
passed in 1996
> aimed at making
> it easier to obtain a conviction. That law, §
> 2339(B), does not
> require intent. It requires only that the defendant
> give aid or
> support to a group that has been designated as a
> terrorist
> organization by the secretary of state.
This I believe is unconstitutional.
> He is NOT a leftist, and NEITHER is he a friend of
the left.
Glad we agree on this.
However, the precedent concerning "seditious conspiracy" set by his prosecution and conviction can very well be used against leftists.
Any conspiracy charges can be used in the same way. The CP defendants in the Debs case were charged with conspiracy to advocate the overthrow of the governmet by force.
All the government has to do is to identify leftists (. . . who find themselves in social milieus (not even organizations, strictly speaking) that include persons who are linked to terrorism (whose definition can be very elastic in the government's hands, far more elastic than in the Rahman case) unbeknownst to the leftists, have informers and provocateurs infiltrate the milieus, seek to entrap the leftists into SAYING (rather than DOING) things that can be grounds for prosecution,
Well, the government's case will be a lot stronger if some of those people in that milieu actually go out and kill and bomb. Probably it is a good idea for all of us to attempt to avoid people who are serious about committing physical violence against persons. That is a good idea anyway -- avoiding people like that. And to make clear to our comrades kers that we reject such tactivs, especially if the comrades suggest it. I have said for 25 years that anyone who advocates violence in a practical context is a provocateur or a cop.
Your saying/doing things here slips back into your earlier misguided defense of the Sheik's solicitation of terrorist acts and murder. If you hang around perople who kill, urge them to plan carefully to attack certain targets, tell them they can or should kill specific persons, you are not in the free speech zone. Sorry. You shouldn't be.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com